Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: stratocaster Date: Apr 8, 2013 8:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: TDIH '84 time for the 'Brent talk...

in this era, 84, Brent's keyboards were a big detraction...Weir changed guitar tones pretty regularly through the years, some tones were awful (thin jangly circa 79 or over distorted circa 93-94) but some tones were right on...Mydland seems to have locked in on this ludicrous set up for a good 5 years...thank god he knew how to play a B-3...don't get me started on Welnick, whose biggest issue with me was not his dreadful tones, but rather his inability to loosen up and groove, depending on horribly redundant licks that are used in every damn version he plays, Pigpen's organ playing never bugged me too much, he seemde to always know when to stop playing...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Apr 8, 2013 8:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: TDIH '84 time for the 'Brent talk...

What I have been finding out/guessing/surmising during my Year In review effort is that if you were first exposed to the Dead with Brent, then you probably like the jangly brightness when he tinkles on his organ. (Set to SDH....)

The B3 sound most/many/some of us prefer worked their way in and Brent fans probably took it in stride.

I have to agree with your assessment that they were a distraction when he was too high in the mix or just downright jangly tinkly. I have also found (after reading Little Sense's post about mixes, is that one source may sound like ass, while another of the same show sounds pretty good.

Also have to agree with aug about Bobby's. Not sure what's worse - his "Haaaas", his "Hiiiiiighers" or his falsetto whisper screeches.

Sometimes he makes Donna's caterwauling in Playin' or her "aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhoooooooooooo aaaaaaaahhhhhheeeeeee" aural waterboarding in some versions of Scar/Fire sound rather pleasant.

Maybe....almost. Not quite....okay, a little.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ColdRain108 Date: Apr 8, 2013 9:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Like viewing a Monet on a crappy cell phone.

Or a sunset on TV.

My first show was the NYE 1980 show. They did an acoustic set and Brent had the real piano on stage, and it sounded great. I wish he had used that throughout his stay.

I never liked the tinkly electronica keyboard, but it is really only an giant pain when listening to the unbalanced SBD's, live it never really was an issue as it was in its proper place - behind Jerry - purely accompaniment. On the AUD tapes the same thing. Same with Vince, SBDs put him way to far in front. This is why judging the GD on the lame recordings is just not good form.

The B3 was there the whole time, wasn't that the real reason they liked Brent in the first place - the B3 that is? It was what made me tolerate anything else he did that I might not like as much, that B3 sound was just perfect in Deal.

Hucka Hucka hiya nananananana hucka hucka nanananananana

We used to mock Bobby from the front row when he went into his little rant. My sister was especially heartless about it. He couldn't miss her standing there hucka huckah hiya'ing back at him. He didn't appreciate our humor...Phil and Jerry did though.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 9, 2013 8:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Like viewing a Monet on a crappy cell phone.

I thought it was interesting that, if I understand this correctly from an earlier post, sometimes what you hear on a SBD can be almost the opposite of what was heard in the hall: if one instrument was way up, it might not feed as much through the board, which had something to do with sending it to the PAs.OK, I've probably got that totally wrong, but that's how I understood it. (Fortunately someone will probably correct me.) But it makes sense to me, cuz I also don't remember Brent as being all THAT dominant.

My first shows were Keith and Donna, but that was only one run, and then it was Brent. I never liked the tinkly piano, and as I recall, that was a big reason why a lot of people were pretty slow to warm to him as "the new guy." But the B3 was always there too. I don't think the Toys R Us piano was all that super-dominant at the time; of course, maybe I blocked it :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ColdRain108 Date: Apr 9, 2013 10:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Like viewing a Monet on a crappy cell phone.

you hit the nail right on the head. Inverse of what was really heard in the crowd.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 9, 2013 5:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Like viewing a Monet on a crappy cell phone.

I assume that's why Charlie Miller et al do their jobs with the SBDs. Because otherwise it's not balanced or even representative historically. (Although those two things could be different. One person's "balanced" could be another person's "too much Brent," etc.)

But Phil also drops out of a lot of AUDs, which he didn't in the halls. My understanding is that this is because of how mics capture bass. (Namely, badly.) So when Phil is missing, it's not just the Heineken. Or so I've gathered, although I could be totally off base ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ColdRain108 Date: Apr 9, 2013 6:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Like viewing a Monet on a crappy cell phone.

This is why Hunter's matrix's are quite popular. You can offset the deficiancies of each by combining them. But it takes a loving ear to do it right.

too much Brent is too much, too much Jerry is impossible.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 9, 2013 6:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Like viewing a Monet on a crappy cell phone.

LOL, I thought that, too. No one ever says "too much Jerry." And too much Phil is also impossible IMO.

When people remaster SBDs don't they also adjust levels?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ColdRain108 Date: Apr 10, 2013 2:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Like viewing a Monet on a crappy cell phone.

you can't adjust the 2 track recordings very much. Just a little EQ here a little compression there. You can add and subtract some of Phil's low low and some of the very high end cymbals, but the instruments are pretty much set in stone without a multi-track recording, especially when they are so far out of balance, as the Brent-Jerry relationship seems to be.